Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is recommended for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients. However, evidence of its role in asymptomatic patients with severe AS remains controversial. Hence, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing AVR to conservative management in patients with asymptomatic severe AS was conducted. A systematic literature search was performed on electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL Library until November 2024. A random effects model was used to pool individual risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager Version 5.4.1 to calculate pooled effect estimates. Three randomized controlled trials with 1203 patients (42% females) were included. On pooled analysis, AVR significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (RR = 0.11, CI: 0.02-0.56, P = 0.008) compared with conservative care. However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.63, CI: 0.36-1.11, P = 0.11), stroke (RR = 0.59, CI: 0.35-1.01, P = 0.05), myocardial infarction (RR = 0.43, CI: 0.06-2.92, P = 0.38), or thromboembolic events (RR = 0.54, CI: 0.13-2.29, P = 0.40). In asymptomatic patients with severe AS, AVR significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization due to heart failure, with comparable risks in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and thromboembolic events compared with conservative management.